|
Tristanjohn -> RE: What do you think of Yamato? (4/7/2005 12:02:05 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez
quote:
I've seen that data and I think it's correct. But the thing to remember is just how fragile battleships actually proved to be. It would take only a few direct hits from Iowa almost anywhere on Yamato's superstructure or even her deck area to very likely "shake" her critical systems loose. The USN experienced more than a little system failure in its battlewagons from the concussive waves created from their own fire! Happened all the time. Getting hit by an incoming 16" would be have many many times greater effect than that, and unless Yamato got awful lucky she'd be hit three or four times as often as Iowa. Also, there's a reliable site somewhere which dispels forever the myth of "fast recycling times" for the Yamato main batteries, with supporting evidence given, if I recall right, from Japanese naval engineers. Should I run across that article again I'll post it here.
I actually think that in a battle between Yamato and Iowa that there wouldn't have been much left of either ship. Both would have been a shambles, assuming no other ships took part. Both could penetrate each other's deck armor and other protected areas depending on range. I think Iowa would have had a much harder penetrating Yamato's gun armor while Yamato has a better chance to do so.
Mike said the range factor is meaningless. Not so. While the chance of a hit at extreme range is minimal, it does allow the longer ranged ship to adust fire quicker and should provide a significantly improved chance of a hit sooner.
The Yamato was also significantly more manueverable but slower than Iowa. This manueravbility should allow her to chase shot easier, reducing the chance of a hit on her. The pictures taken of her during her final battle show that she was extremely manueverable with a turning radius more like that of a heavy crusier. Weather would also be a major factor. The worse the weather, the better chance Yamato has due to her greater stability.
Iowa, being faster, would probably want to close to her best firing range as quick as she could. This might mean that she would only have the use of her forward guns as she closed. This puts her at a great disadvantage assuming she is apporaching Yamato's broadside.
The way I see it, each had advantages and disadvantages.
Yamato's advantages:
Longer range guns
Greater penetrating value
Greater stability
More manueverable
Iowa's advantages:
Better crew training
Better damage control
Better fire control
Greater speed
Yamato's ability to absorb punishment is well evident. The best data I've been able to find indicates Yamato was hit by 22 500lb-1000lb bombs and 10 torpedoes. I think Iowa would not have been able to sustain nearly as much damage.
He who hits first and keeps hitting is generally the victor. As in so many other cases, a battle between the two most likely would have been decided by one shell hit or salvo. Whoever knocked out the other's firecontrol, caused a significant speed reduction or reduced the other's manuevervability first is going to gain the clear advantage. Either way, I would not have wanted to be on either ship during a confrontation.
Chez
Mostly not so. Turn radius and the relatively more stable platform prove to be ephemeral advantages to gunnery performance in actual use, as the first characteristic would tend to cancel the second out to a degree. Also, the inability of Yamato to accurately adjust fire on the move in step with (I speak here in a relative sense--nobody's suggesting that Yamato went to sea with a cruddy range-keeping system, it simply wasn't state of the art) Iowa's fast solutions would only be exacerbated by that smaller turn radius should it be employed, and points to a very real shortcoming she had to bear vis-a-vis Iowa's primary strength: the calculation of fire solutions quickly on the fly. The latter ship, simply put, could compensate more surely across the board for real-world challenges (the loss of a finder, say) and natural obstacles (difficulty to acquire LOS in foul weather or at night, rough sea states) as these presented themselves. With regard to the latter, it was in those high sea states where the advantage would grow starker still for Iowa, for that's precisely where her technology would tend to show its most brilliant colors.
The physical positioning of finders is not much of an issue, except for height, where more, other things being equal, is better, but then other things are not always equal. In any event, one direct hit on any finder means kaput, and it's impossible to predict where those hits might actually strike home. Should a finder go south, however, then Yamato would be in something of a fix, whereas Iowa would still be capable to deliver reasonably accurate fire quickly due her more sophisticated radar. In turn, Yamato would then be reduced to local fire control. Not good.
Bottom line: the fire-control system of Iowa stood head and shoulders above what Yamato had to work with. It was inherently less complicated to operate and actually required far fewer operators (in fact, the Iowa required just one operator for its computer whereas the Yamato's Type 92 Shagekiban computer required seven operators, not a minor point as human error is always with us and adds up fast) and was intrinsically more accurate in spite of superior IJN optics due to the collective technological advances introduced by the Mark 38 GFCS (Gun Fire Control System) working in cooperation with the Mark 8 rangekeeper, all of this on a more stable platform than Yamato due to the use of a gyro compass system to provide a stable vertical reference for determining the true horizon. With the advent of the Mark 8 Mod 2 rangekeeper in 1943 the performance gap only widened between these potential antagonists. In short, it was not Yamato but rather Iowa which proved to be the more stable gun platform in real-world conditions, the more accurate purveyor of deadly salvos down range, and at a faster rate to boot. (On paper, always, though the performance of this class since World War II would seem to confirm the analysis. Of course, that's been like shooting ducks, not the same deal as face to face with an enemy shooting back at you, but it's all we have to go on save for test shoots.)
This argument might never die, but the consensus among the techie-types is that Iowa enjoyed a clear advantage in all critical areas of gunnery. I am not a techie, will never be a techie, but I do read (have read--this is an ancient issue) what these techie people have to say.
Please go to this page for a crash course on the subject: Overview of USN and IJN Warship Ballistic Computer Design
That link mates to this site, which I consider to be one of the premier (i.e. reliable because it's run by serious people) sources available for many things naval: Warships
Here is their forum (it teems with techie-types [:)]): Warships Forum
I agree about "being there" for that gargantuan conflict. It would scare the dogshit out of me.
|
|
|
|
